And why would people think that automatically "Leftists hate traffic cameras and intrustion, Right-Wingers love it?" Government surveillance falls very easily within the realms of BOTH sides, though often for different reasons.
That's a pretty bad translation that willfully misrepresents the point the grandparent was making.
All he was saying was, when someone says "The Wii is so simple that even a toddler can use it!" his response is "so? That's not the reason to choose it over something else."
The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature. None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.
Only if you use an especially snobby definition of "art."
I think adults seriously underestimate just what kids can take in the movie. "In children's films, the villain doesn't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp.." why not? He's a villain. If you thought that was terrifying for kids, just read into popular children's literature of the past. Certainly look through Grimm's Fairy Tales that we still get so much inspiration from.
That blog post is in error -- "The Bear and the Bow" will be all-Disney, not Pixar. Pixar's next flicks are Toy Story 2, NEWT, and Cars 2.
That is incorrect, The Bear and the Bow is a purely Pixar feature, and is directed by Brenda Chapman, who currently works at Pixar. You may be thinking of The King of the Elves, a Disney production set to be released in 2012.
Disney didn't make Anastasia, that was Dreamworks.
It wasn't Dreamworks either, it was Fox Animations Studios, which at the time was Don Bluth's (Secret of Nimh, American Tale, Titan AE) house.
I mean, you look at their more recent stuff - "The Emperor's New Groove", "Treasure Planet", "Chicken Little" - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.
The other two were dreck, but everyone I've talked to who has seen The Emperor's New Groove really liked it (haven't seen it myself). It's apparently a good film if you take the effort to see it, but it's not an easy sell.
Then again, I didn't think Up was an easy sell either.
Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back [...]
Well, yes, but it's slightly different.
Star Trek and Star Wars were essentially about the stories. The characters don't grow and change and learn much during the stories--they are who they are. But they're fun characters and we want to see their further adventures.
Oh Lord, now I have to don my SCI-FI nerdery hat.
I disagree! I think that the characters grow and change quite a bit through both movies.
In Star Trek II, Kirk confronts his feeling about aging; how giving up the captain's seat and directing StarFleet Operations left him just feeling old (Shatner was 51 at this point) and eventually only commanding the Enterprise is where he feels young again. His mid-life crisis is to leave the admiralcy that he worked for the sit in the captain's chair again, something that Spock is all too willing to allow. At the end he loses his best friend and constant companion, and in the sequel he destroys his career in StarFleet (at the time he expected a long jail sentence) to find a way to save Spock.
Let's take the character of Han Solo from Empire Strikes Back. At the start he's simply a mercenary -- tagging along with the rebels for awhile, but really the only reason he sticks around is that he's infatuated with Leia. By the end of the film he falls in love with Leia, chooses to sacrifice himself entirely, joining his friends and the rebels instead of taking the bounty that Jabba put over his head (which is why he gets shipped back to Jabba's palace instead of staying with Lando). Luke spends pretty much the entire Empire Strikes Back learning the ways of the force, finding out his relation to Vader.. he's a much much different character at the start of Return of the Jedi than he is at the end of Star Wars.
Those two movies are about stories, but some characters go through profound changes along the way..
Those guild recruiters are absolute fools, and you'd be better off without them. I know a number of terribad players who tagged along once with a very high-end guild to get an achievement for the immortal (no one in the raid dies, ever) or to down such-and-such boss in so many minutes.
The guilds who actually think things through know better than to rely on this.
Actually, the Star Trek movies have been mostly about action, starting with Star Trek II. I love Wrath of Khan, I really do, but it's awesomeness and success helped kill the more cerebral science fiction atmosphere that had dominated until then.
I've already explained the difference. If you disagree, that's your right. But I would definitely prefer to live in USSR under Stalin, then in Germany under Hitler.
Or you could have lived in East Germany throughout the 1940s and gotten the honor of both!
I could create a budget to pay-off the United States debt in 5 maybe 10 years time. The only problem is that my budget would involve moving SSI from an "everyone's eligible" system to a "only poor are eligible" system, and none of the voters would want to hear that. Plus my budget would cut military spending to near-zero, and the military-industrial complex doesn't want that either.
Yup, you'd certainly have the deal with the ripple effects on our economy. The reason we call it the military-industrial complex is because if one disappears, the other will go down with it.
I do agree with spending reductions, but a realistic situation that doesn't involve another Great Depression would need to be more than just lopping off a chunk of spending and walking away. How would we handle the huge mass of people unemployed by the shutdown of the military?
Slashdot Mirror
And why would people think that automatically "Leftists hate traffic cameras and intrustion, Right-Wingers love it?" Government surveillance falls very easily within the realms of BOTH sides, though often for different reasons.
Sept 13, 1999. Ten years and a few days late. Space:1999
Ah, beat me to it! I was going to speculate regarding the whereabouts of Martin Landau and Barbara Bain during all this...
Barbara Bain is still around! Sadly, Martin Landau has passed away..
The topic was posted by kdawson. 'nough said.
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
It hasn't been an oxymoron since the 70s, really.
That's a pretty bad translation that willfully misrepresents the point the grandparent was making.
All he was saying was, when someone says "The Wii is so simple that even a toddler can use it!" his response is "so? That's not the reason to choose it over something else."
You might be right with Cars and A Bug's Life, but trust me that Finding Nemo resonates very strongly with many parents.
Do you have a citation for that? Even the official movie title, "Walt Disney's Fantasia" hints that it may be a Disney production.
Ok: spoiler alert!
But really, in a thread about whether characters in these movies change, spoilers are pretty much a given!
I stayed far, far away from any discussion of LOST until I finally caught up with the DVDs.
The vast bulk of Pixar's work is commercial in nature. None of their films are art films; they're all carefully concocted, demographically targetted Disney style family fun factory output.
Only if you use an especially snobby definition of "art."
I think adults seriously underestimate just what kids can take in the movie. "In children's films, the villain doesn't tie a protagonist to a chair and drop him out of a blimp.." why not? He's a villain. If you thought that was terrifying for kids, just read into popular children's literature of the past. Certainly look through Grimm's Fairy Tales that we still get so much inspiration from.
That blog post is in error -- "The Bear and the Bow" will be all-Disney, not Pixar. Pixar's next flicks are Toy Story 2, NEWT, and Cars 2.
That is incorrect, The Bear and the Bow is a purely Pixar feature, and is directed by Brenda Chapman, who currently works at Pixar. You may be thinking of The King of the Elves, a Disney production set to be released in 2012.
until Toy Story 2, they never released a theatrical sequel.
Quick correction: The Rescuers Down Under (1990) was a theatrical release. Otherwise, I wish I could mod your post to 1000.
My very favorite Disney animated movie is one without even a real discernible story: Fantasia.
Now that was a cutting edge movie, both stylistically and technically.
Disney didn't make Anastasia, that was Dreamworks.
It wasn't Dreamworks either, it was Fox Animations Studios, which at the time was Don Bluth's (Secret of Nimh, American Tale, Titan AE) house.
I mean, you look at their more recent stuff - "The Emperor's New Groove", "Treasure Planet", "Chicken Little" - some of that just makes a person want to look away again.
The other two were dreck, but everyone I've talked to who has seen The Emperor's New Groove really liked it (haven't seen it myself). It's apparently a good film if you take the effort to see it, but it's not an easy sell.
Then again, I didn't think Up was an easy sell either.
Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan, Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back [...]
Well, yes, but it's slightly different.
Star Trek and Star Wars were essentially about the stories. The characters don't grow and change and learn much during the stories--they are who they are. But they're fun characters and we want to see their further adventures.
Oh Lord, now I have to don my SCI-FI nerdery hat.
I disagree! I think that the characters grow and change quite a bit through both movies.
In Star Trek II, Kirk confronts his feeling about aging; how giving up the captain's seat and directing StarFleet Operations left him just feeling old (Shatner was 51 at this point) and eventually only commanding the Enterprise is where he feels young again. His mid-life crisis is to leave the admiralcy that he worked for the sit in the captain's chair again, something that Spock is all too willing to allow. At the end he loses his best friend and constant companion, and in the sequel he destroys his career in StarFleet (at the time he expected a long jail sentence) to find a way to save Spock.
Let's take the character of Han Solo from Empire Strikes Back. At the start he's simply a mercenary -- tagging along with the rebels for awhile, but really the only reason he sticks around is that he's infatuated with Leia. By the end of the film he falls in love with Leia, chooses to sacrifice himself entirely, joining his friends and the rebels instead of taking the bounty that Jabba put over his head (which is why he gets shipped back to Jabba's palace instead of staying with Lando). Luke spends pretty much the entire Empire Strikes Back learning the ways of the force, finding out his relation to Vader.. he's a much much different character at the start of Return of the Jedi than he is at the end of Star Wars.
Those two movies are about stories, but some characters go through profound changes along the way..
Pixar never released the actual cost of the movies they make. Please don't trust the "budget" figures from boxofficemojo; they're pretty much made up.
What were you saying?
I wouldn't say that's necessarily mad. Certainly it's evil, but that doesn't have to be mad.
Those guild recruiters are absolute fools, and you'd be better off without them. I know a number of terribad players who tagged along once with a very high-end guild to get an achievement for the immortal (no one in the raid dies, ever) or to down such-and-such boss in so many minutes.
The guilds who actually think things through know better than to rely on this.
Actually, the Star Trek movies have been mostly about action, starting with Star Trek II. I love Wrath of Khan, I really do, but it's awesomeness and success helped kill the more cerebral science fiction atmosphere that had dominated until then.
He does express them in a way that's unnecessarily offensive and combative. But that doesn't make him an asshole. That makes him a typical geek!
It sounds like you're arguing that the typical geek is an asshole. I'm not sure I'd disagree with that either.
No one should know that much about memes.
No one.
"Fine. Whatever. I'll revert it, assholes." - what a great way to resolve the bug.
Hover over the name to see the registered email address -- that was someone else using his name.
Mods, I don't think the AC deserved the Troll mod. While he certainly could have phrased it more politely, he's absolutely right.
I've already explained the difference. If you disagree, that's your right. But I would definitely prefer to live in USSR under Stalin, then in Germany under Hitler.
Or you could have lived in East Germany throughout the 1940s and gotten the honor of both!
I could create a budget to pay-off the United States debt in 5 maybe 10 years time. The only problem is that my budget would involve moving SSI from an "everyone's eligible" system to a "only poor are eligible" system, and none of the voters would want to hear that. Plus my budget would cut military spending to near-zero, and the military-industrial complex doesn't want that either.
Yup, you'd certainly have the deal with the ripple effects on our economy. The reason we call it the military-industrial complex is because if one disappears, the other will go down with it.
I do agree with spending reductions, but a realistic situation that doesn't involve another Great Depression would need to be more than just lopping off a chunk of spending and walking away. How would we handle the huge mass of people unemployed by the shutdown of the military?